From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Feb 14 10:14:59 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id KAA04401
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 10:14:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tenet.CS.Berkeley.EDU (root@tenet.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.33.109])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA04394
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 10:14:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from premise.CS.Berkeley.EDU (premise.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.33.172]) by tenet.CS.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id KAA20643; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 10:14:49 -0800
Received: from premise.CS.Berkeley.EDU (localhost.Berkeley.EDU [127.0.0.1]) 
	by premise.CS.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.11/1.3-tenet) with ESMTP
	id KAA24558; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 10:14:47 -0800
Message-Id: <199602141814.KAA24558@premise.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.5 12/11/95
To: Peter Dufault <dufault@hda.com>
cc: nate@sri.mt.net (Nate Williams), mheller@student.uni-kl.de,
        hackers@freebsd.org, bmah@cs.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Q: Somebody working on more recent binutils ? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 13 Feb 1996 21:09:14 EST."
             <199602140209.VAA23082@hda.com> 
From: bmah@cs.Berkeley.EDU (Bruce A. Mah)
Reply-to: bmah@cs.Berkeley.EDU
X-Face: g~c`.{#4q0"(V*b#g[i~rXgm*w;:nMfz%_RZLma)UgGN&=j`5vXoU^@n5<Pi&akO)o^8;[r
 %l(8ZHlbF`dD>v4:OO)c["!w)nD/!!~e4Sj7LiT'6*wZ83454H""lb{CC%T37O!!'S$S&D}sem7I[A
 2V%N&+
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 10:14:35 -0800
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

Peter Dufault writes:
> > 
> > > I'd like to know if someone is porting gas/ld 2.6 or 2.5.x ?
> > 
> > Gas works already, ld is not going to happen anytime soon, if at all.
> > 
> > > To have a more recent gas/ld than the ones coming with the
> > > distribution is absolutely necessary for running g++ 2.7.2
> > > andd libg++2.7.1 because g++ needs the .weak symbols in 
> > > some circumstances to produce the 'right' code.
> > 
> > Are you absolutely *sure*?  According to recent reports posted to this
> > list (today or yesterday) it isn't necessary.  All that's required is to
> > remove the creation of .weak symbols by gcc2.7.2.
> 
> All I really know so far is that Ptolemy builds and at least some
> demos run without the .weak symbol support.  I was just going to test
> things some more.  I'd sure like the definitive
> answer on .weak symbols and the need in g++.

#undef LURK
Another data point:  I'm working on a very large IP-over-ATM network simulator 
(~26,000 lines of C++).  To date, I've seen identical results on my DEC Alpha 
at work (Digital UNIX 3.2, g++ 2.7.2) and my PC at home (FreeBSD 
2.1.0-RELEASE, g++ 2.7.2 with "no .weak symbol" patch).  So far, no 
indications of compiler malfunctions.

Bruce.
#define LURK 1